Who helped Oswald?
 

Did he have some communist buddies? or did he act alone?
It appears to me the last shot hit the president from the front right. He
was already slumped from being hit and the last shot pushed him back.
Why did our investigations stop with Oswald when witnesses at the scene
reported shots fired from the "grassy knoll" or bridge area.

The Millitary Industrial Complex.

JFK had second thoughts about Vietnam.
They stood to make billions off of that war.
He had to go.

Johnson complied because he was either intimidated or paid off.

What an absolute shame.

Dave

Sometimes things are as they appear. I think once the personalities of Oswald and Ruby are explored it is easy to dismiss all the conspiracy theories.

I dont know anything about Ruby but Oswald had serious issues. I really dont
think the U.S. had anything to do with it but someone else was in on it.
You can watch the video on youtube and clearly the final shot came from
the front or did it?

Ain't tellin'.

Chas

Thing about the whole JFK business its just like UFOs-LOTS & LOTS of smoke, all kinds of theories, but in nearly 50 years now, NOBODY'S ever come forward & "Spilled the Beans". Oswald was the perfect guy to have done it-Shady character, shady/obscure background, "Maybe he did/maybe he didn't" connections w/almost everybody else involved in it...Who knows ?

I read that Oswald was not a good shot barely passing in the military. Using
an old army surplus rifle with probably a cheap scope aiming at a moving
target would be tough for a sniper in that situation. I think he blasted
several shots and maybe hit him once or twice in the back or shoulder.
Ruby had to be involved somehow other than revenge against a stranger
killing the president.

That was an easy shot for someone with his ability. This has been spoken to by all main stream entities.

It may have been as I dont know the distance or angle. I can easily hit a
cantelope at 100 yards with my rifle but its much better equipment than
he had and I have probably shot more than he ever did. I have also
deer hunted for 35 years and as big as deer are, they seem really small
when moving and nerves come into play. I guess my point was that he
seemed really stupid, had lived in Russia for a time and may have had ties
to Cuba. That and the head shot seemed to have come from the front right
and his head went back with the impact and towards Mrs Kennedy.

I guess everybody was "All Tore Up", too, as we say down here, & I don't know what the procedures were for handling a crime scene in antebellum 1963, but it does look like the Lincoln should NOT have been cleaned up immediately at Parkland like it was.. Kennedy's brain should have been saved...Connoly's suit-And I think JFK's, as well, should NOT have been cleaned...I think every cop in Dallas managed to handle the rifle at the Book Depository...As well as the boxes that the "Sniper's Nest" was made from...And the spent shell casings...Things must have been VERY lax in the Big D back then....Why was Ruby-or ANY non-policeman, for that matter-let into the area where Oswald was to be transfered ? Maybe all this stuff was just SOP back in those innocent days, but now, to our 2009 skeptical eyes, it kinda looks like the Keystone Kops...Of course, nobody back then even dreamed of something called DNA matching, I doubt if there were 100 people outside of academia who even KNEW what a "DNA" was, or ever guessed it could one day be used to solve crimes...

Read a bit about the New Orleans mafia boss Carlos Marcello and his possible involvement. I have a hard time buying into Jack Ruby shooting Oswald out of some sort of patriotic zeal.

After reviewing the re-examination of Jack Ruby's lie detector test, it seems
he may have lied when asked if he assisted Oswald in the assasination.
He had the highest rise in blood pressure on that question over all the
others asked him during testing. There were also irregularities when asked
if he was a member of the Communist party.

Dave,
Hmm?????????
This is before I was even born, but not by much. I have heard many things on both side of the aisle about Johnson.
One theory heard was that Johnson actually was a part of it, not just paid off, but actually involved in the whole scheme. He was the one who wnated to escallate the war.

On the other side, I had a humanities professor in college who adored him. THought his "great society" was the best thing that ever happened. Told us that many of his writings showed he was a good and compassionate man. He hated the war.

How does a person know what to believe?

i'd have to go with this one. we'll probably never know the truth.

I'm sorry, Fellas but I really believe JFK was killed by our own. Sure, the Communists had motive, certainly Castro more specifically. But there were some pretty powerfull people right here in this country who thought JFK was a Communist. There were also plenty of people who stood to make billions off of the war. So, when he began waffling on Vietnam, and commented that U.S. involvement in S.E. Asia might be a "mistake"................Pop, pop, pop,---Hello LBJ. Hello massive troop deployments.

No one has stepped forward? Have you ever seen the documentary Robert McNamara made a few years back?

As the old saying goes---"Follow the money trail." Who stood to gain the most from a long protracted war in Vietnam? Castro? Nope. Kruschev? Nope. U.S. Millitary contractors? Uh..........................

When it comes to this issue, I think most Americans just don't want to think the unthinkable. I can understand that. I think it's naive. But I understand.

I think this is exactly what Eisenhower tried to warn us about.

Dave

"On the other side, I had a humanities professor in college who adored him. THought his "great society" was the best thing that ever happened. Told us that many of his writings showed he was a good and compassionate man. He hated the war."

How does a person know what to believe?"

Even if he was a "good, compassionate man", sometimes the best of us will do some horrendously uncharacteristic things, when there's a gun to his head.

We'll never really know. Most, if not all of the major players are gone.

Dave

I think JFK had a hit out on Castro, and Castro got him first.

Yeah, there is no doubt Castro would have wanted him dead. JFK did have a hit out on him, and then the was the Bay of Pigs escapade (Attempted coup.) and of course the October Missle Crisis, true dat. I can certainly see where you're comin' from on this TD.

But, the question that comes to my mind is;
If it was Castro, then why was no action taken against Cuba? Other than the stupid cigar embargo, that is?
I mean, I would think murdering our President would be grounds to go to war, wouldn't you? I dunno, I kinda think the whole "It was Oswald, he's a Commie loser working alone." conclusion was just too quick and dirty. As if someone told the Warren Commission, "Pin it on Oswald, then go away. If you know what's good for you." Why didn't the investigation go beyond that point? I would think if it was Castro, our government would have been itching to call him out? This is why I tend to think it was an inside job. I don't see that there would have been any reason to cover up Castros guilt. But if it was someone powerful, infuential, an American? Oh yeah.

Anyhow. I wouldn't totally discount your theory, it's a reasonable one.
But I just don't see it.

Dave

I think you are correct blue. In fact Ruby may have been the one shooting
from the front or grassy knoll and once Osawld was captured, he had to
take him out or risk being exposed. Maybe the Mobb was in the middle
because Ruby and Oswald both claimed to be patsies. If Ruby was exposed
and Oswald talked about the Mobb, then Ruby's family was in danger which
is what he told the Warren commision he feared would happen. He wanted
to be taken out of Dallas and into Washington for protection. Anyway,
the Military contractors did have the most to gain and did the Ruskies not
supply the North Vietnamese? so they stood to gain also. Anyway, all these
wars are really about money and power anyway. Every war we ever fought
we were supposedly liberating someone whether it be white settlers, slaves
french, south koreans, south vietnamese, iraqies, afhgans, who did I miss?

Jack Kennedy had LOTS of enemies my friends. He was popular with the people. But the "powers that be" in 1963? Hoffa? The Mafia? The Communist Bloc? The Klan? The list goes on and on. That guy and his brothers went around stomping on toes like nobodies business.

But I do think the scenario I've presented is the most believeable.

Just my opinion.

Dave

i am of an age that i do remember where i was when i heard the news of jfk's murder. after 8 yrs of this old grampa guy 'ike' in there, it seemed people were energized by the presence in the white house of a young, active, well spoken and educated man w/ an attractive wife of similar attributes. we were glad to have them represent us in the world(there were kennedy haters as well, i know, and i know that no one is perfect; but despite the flaws, the family paid a heavy price for their involvement in civic duties and affairs).
whoever killed jfk(and i lean to the view that more than just one man was involved, even if only because of the many enemies the kennedy family had-some perhaps w/reason) also struck a harsh blow at the underlying faith people had in the idea that america was a truly good place with high-minded goals and a bright future. more assassinations and vietnam then brought cynicism to the place once held by a national optimism. johnson, i believe, though a consummate politician, was a decent man(i know, it's problematic as to whether one can defend the juxstaposition of those descriptions), and wasn't actively involved, even if wisdom compelled his silence. best possibility i can see is a mob hit passively aided by interested parties here and in cuba(identifying and positioning oswald as a suitable 'patsy' and then the obfuscation of any 'investigation'). the 'parallax view' was an interesting flick from about ten years after dallas, which amongst other things, highlights the cynicism developing in the post 60's u.s. also, i'm not surprised that no one has broken 'omerta' on this one so far-'deep throat' went 'til he was almost dead(many saw him as a 'good' guy should he have 'come out') and there did'nt need to be a huge host of people who really 'knew'. those who did's interests are still being served by silence.

Who helped Oswald? A mail order gun seller.
end of story.

sometimes genius is in simplicity :)

So with this mentality, the young lady who stopped the massacre at Fort
Hood and saved countless lives should not be hailed as a hero but praise
should instead be placed with the seller of the gun?

No.
The gun is just a tool.
The guy who sold it is just a salesman.
The woman who used it to stop senseless bloodshed is a hero, IMHO.

Dave

:confused:


What on the planet are you trying to say?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this heroic young lady a law enforcement officer using a firearm within the scope of her public safety duties? She certainly went above and beyond, contuing to pursue the murderer after she had been shot. No doubt that she deserves all of our respect. In fact, the officer took out a criminally insane person who obviously had plenty of access to weapons.

What she did had no relevance to whether any private citizens should be pistol packin' mamas.

Regards,

D-Ray

he's saying that if you can transfer responsibility for jfk's death to the supplier of the gun in that case, then you can just as well transfer responsibility(or kudos) for the stopping of the ft. hood nut to the supplier of the weapon used to do that job-legitimacy of the wielding agent's authorizations notwithstanding-

Thanks, I knew it didn't make any sense. ;)

There are appropriate and inappropriate uses for guns, just as there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of obtaining them.

The law enforcement officer who performed so heroically at Ft. Hood is an example of both appropriate use and appropriate provenance. As a duly sworn officer of the law, she obtained her weapon legitimately and used it to protect the public welfare. Oswald, on the other hand, obtained his rifle in the most casual of ways and used it in the most heinous.

John

you are correct, sad thing is that it is so easy to legally get a gun for use in malice.

This thread may have new relevance
 

Discovery Channel is going to reveal new information about the assassination of JFK this Sunday. From what little I've been hearing it ought to be pretty interesting.

John

The Discovery Channel has turned away from a fact based shows in favor of higher rating shows on ghosts and crap. My guess is the is another UFO approach show. Hope not but I think this is one subject that has long been put to bed with facts and science.

It seems that all networks that start out as hard science wind up with dopey shows after a few years.

Cash cab, dirty jobs, Ghost Lab, American Loggers..........

Discovery Channel is a far cry from the great channel it was when it came on the air back in the '80s. That's for sure but they do have some really good programming from time to time like the Planet Earth series. I'm hoping this Kennedy show will be one of the good ones. We'll see.

John

thank goodness we have the science channel now

I cannot wait. I'll be in front of the telly, with beer and popcorn, poised for action!:D

Dave